RYANAIR pilots, please share your thoughts/ experience
Joined: Sep 2025
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 27
Likes: 25
From: Birmimgham
Just been scouring through the thread and had a curiosity. Does anyone know the justification as to why the LIFUS salary is effectively minimum wage at best? My understanding is the LIFUS is part of all airlines OCC and therefore mandatory employer training so how is it that the salary is vastly different from a second/first officer position? At that point you’re CPL, ATPL (Frozen) with a paid for Type… how is this being normalised? Is it under a Ryanair contract or another company?
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 589
Likes: 60
From: FLSomething
Just been scouring through the thread and had a curiosity. Does anyone know the justification as to why the LIFUS salary is effectively minimum wage at best? My understanding is the LIFUS is part of all airlines OCC and therefore mandatory employer training so how is it that the salary is vastly different from a second/first officer position? At that point you’re CPL, ATPL (Frozen) with a paid for Type… how is this being normalised? Is it under a Ryanair contract or another company?
Joined: Sep 2025
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 27
Likes: 25
From: Birmimgham
Haha
I just find it curious that this seems to clearly violate the law in the overlaps between employment / Aviation / commercial etc… and yet the regulators have if anything encouraged it… despite it effectively being pay to fly. People being desperate is one thing but the point of the law and regulators is to stop companies exploiting that desperation surely.
I just find it curious that this seems to clearly violate the law in the overlaps between employment / Aviation / commercial etc… and yet the regulators have if anything encouraged it… despite it effectively being pay to fly. People being desperate is one thing but the point of the law and regulators is to stop companies exploiting that desperation surely.
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 589
Likes: 60
From: FLSomething
Haha
I just find it curious that this seems to clearly violate the law in the overlaps between employment / Aviation / commercial etc… and yet the regulators have if anything encouraged it… despite it effectively being pay to fly. People being desperate is one thing but the point of the law and regulators is to stop companies exploiting that desperation surely.
I just find it curious that this seems to clearly violate the law in the overlaps between employment / Aviation / commercial etc… and yet the regulators have if anything encouraged it… despite it effectively being pay to fly. People being desperate is one thing but the point of the law and regulators is to stop companies exploiting that desperation surely.
Ryanair offer a salary. Pilot with zero hours and desperate for a job looks at advertised salary and decides it is acceptable, so accepts the job.
The reason McDonald’s pay minimum wage is the same, people are happy to accept it. If they weren’t they wouldn’t. It really is that simple.
Equally, if people didn’t pay for licenses, you would be paid a salary to attend your fully expensed training courses. But people are happy to pay. So it doesn’t happen.
Joined: Sep 2025
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 27
Likes: 25
From: Birmimgham
What’s it got to do with the regulators?
Ryanair offer a salary. Pilot with zero hours and desperate for a job looks at advertised salary and decides it is acceptable, so accepts the job.
The reason McDonald’s pay minimum wage is the same, people are happy to accept it. If they weren’t they wouldn’t. It’s really that simple.
Ryanair offer a salary. Pilot with zero hours and desperate for a job looks at advertised salary and decides it is acceptable, so accepts the job.
The reason McDonald’s pay minimum wage is the same, people are happy to accept it. If they weren’t they wouldn’t. It’s really that simple.
Sorry I have to disagree you’re equating a McDonald’s Worker to being the same as a highly qualified individual in a safety critical industry. Yes the people may accept it… that is clear for all to see… the question really is why are regulators allowing it and how is it possible it’s got this far.
We can’t even remotely equate it to a McDonald’s worker as they don’t even have to outlay any costs for the job and then when they start the job they are guaranteed the minimum wage.
Forcing pilots to pay for operator required training so anything past CPL / APS MCC (disguised or not) is an illegal deduction and likely results in pay to fly, which is indentured servitude by another name never mind debt bondage.
Minimising this whole issue is part of the problem, I was glad to see the guardian have recently picked up on the Ghent study where you can see how this erodes flight safety and just culture.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2...es-study-warns
https://www.theguardian.com/business...ur-experiences
This issue is a root cause of the smaller issues seen across these forums. Surely the regulators should be forced to act rather than the community aiding them in ignoring it and having the attitude… “it’s becuase people accept it” a corporation has far more power than any single person who falls foul of the trap the corporation has created. Isn’t aiding them essentially victim blaming while helping the company erode Ts&Cs until there is nothing left?
Sorry I get quite passionate about this, I can’t stand injustice and whenever i read about it I get a bug in my bonnet.
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 100
Likes: 122
From: UK
Sorry I have to disagree you’re equating a McDonald’s Worker to being the same as a highly qualified individual in a safety critical industry. Yes the people may accept it… that is clear for all to see… the question really is why are regulators allowing it and how is it possible it’s got this far.
We can’t even remotely equate it to a McDonald’s worker as they don’t even have to outlay any costs for the job and then when they start the job they are guaranteed the minimum wage.
Forcing pilots to pay for operator required training so anything past CPL / APS MCC (disguised or not) is an illegal deduction and likely results in pay to fly, which is indentured servitude by another name never mind debt bondage.
Minimising this whole issue is part of the problem, I was glad to see the guardian have recently picked up on the Ghent study where you can see how this erodes flight safety and just culture.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2...es-study-warns
https://www.theguardian.com/business...ur-experiences
This issue is a root cause of the smaller issues seen across these forums. Surely the regulators should be forced to act rather than the community aiding them in ignoring it and having the attitude… “it’s becuase people accept it” a corporation has far more power than any single person who falls foul of the trap the corporation has created. Isn’t aiding them essentially victim blaming while helping the company erode Ts&Cs until there is nothing left?
Sorry I get quite passionate about this, I can’t stand injustice and whenever i read about it I get a bug in my bonnet.
We can’t even remotely equate it to a McDonald’s worker as they don’t even have to outlay any costs for the job and then when they start the job they are guaranteed the minimum wage.
Forcing pilots to pay for operator required training so anything past CPL / APS MCC (disguised or not) is an illegal deduction and likely results in pay to fly, which is indentured servitude by another name never mind debt bondage.
Minimising this whole issue is part of the problem, I was glad to see the guardian have recently picked up on the Ghent study where you can see how this erodes flight safety and just culture.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2...es-study-warns
https://www.theguardian.com/business...ur-experiences
This issue is a root cause of the smaller issues seen across these forums. Surely the regulators should be forced to act rather than the community aiding them in ignoring it and having the attitude… “it’s becuase people accept it” a corporation has far more power than any single person who falls foul of the trap the corporation has created. Isn’t aiding them essentially victim blaming while helping the company erode Ts&Cs until there is nothing left?
Sorry I get quite passionate about this, I can’t stand injustice and whenever i read about it I get a bug in my bonnet.
At the end of the day, you’re paid based on how many others could do your job just as well for less money. If only a small number of people can meet that standard, the pay naturally goes up.
That's why professional footballers are well paid. On the flip side, there are plenty of jobs that are highly respected but don’t pay much, simply because there’s a larger supply of people able and willing to do them. Pay reflects scarcity and ability. Certainly not perceived professionalism or status.
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 589
Likes: 60
From: FLSomething
Sorry I have to disagree you’re equating a McDonald’s Worker to being the same as a highly qualified individual in a safety critical industry. Yes the people may accept it… that is clear for all to see… the question really is why are regulators allowing it and how is it possible it’s got this far.
We can’t even remotely equate it to a McDonald’s worker as they don’t even have to outlay any costs for the job and then when they start the job they are guaranteed the minimum wage.
Forcing pilots to pay for operator required training so anything past CPL / APS MCC (disguised or not) is an illegal deduction and likely results in pay to fly, which is indentured servitude by another name never mind debt bondage.
Minimising this whole issue is part of the problem, I was glad to see the guardian have recently picked up on the Ghent study where you can see how this erodes flight safety and just culture.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2...es-study-warns
https://www.theguardian.com/business...ur-experiences
This issue is a root cause of the smaller issues seen across these forums. Surely the regulators should be forced to act rather than the community aiding them in ignoring it and having the attitude… “it’s becuase people accept it” a corporation has far more power than any single person who falls foul of the trap the corporation has created. Isn’t aiding them essentially victim blaming while helping the company erode Ts&Cs until there is nothing left?
Sorry I get quite passionate about this, I can’t stand injustice and whenever i read about it I get a bug in my bonnet.
We can’t even remotely equate it to a McDonald’s worker as they don’t even have to outlay any costs for the job and then when they start the job they are guaranteed the minimum wage.
Forcing pilots to pay for operator required training so anything past CPL / APS MCC (disguised or not) is an illegal deduction and likely results in pay to fly, which is indentured servitude by another name never mind debt bondage.
Minimising this whole issue is part of the problem, I was glad to see the guardian have recently picked up on the Ghent study where you can see how this erodes flight safety and just culture.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2...es-study-warns
https://www.theguardian.com/business...ur-experiences
This issue is a root cause of the smaller issues seen across these forums. Surely the regulators should be forced to act rather than the community aiding them in ignoring it and having the attitude… “it’s becuase people accept it” a corporation has far more power than any single person who falls foul of the trap the corporation has created. Isn’t aiding them essentially victim blaming while helping the company erode Ts&Cs until there is nothing left?
Sorry I get quite passionate about this, I can’t stand injustice and whenever i read about it I get a bug in my bonnet.
Joined: Sep 2025
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 27
Likes: 25
From: Birmimgham
I take your points but I disagree across the board.
Yes technically a company can of course pay minimum wage. The point of a regulator though is to ensure that they do not pay below minimum wage. We have employment and labour law that are supposed to draw a line as to when the employer pays for training. My understanding is that the OCC and LIFUS are non-delegable if wrapped up with the type rating then this also should be the case. So as soon as an airline charges for training and includes these elements in that relationship they are effectively charging for employment until the relationship fundamentally changes. Just because the company puts a paper shell between itself and the employee that doesn’t mean everyone should accept this evasion of law and workers rights… that is where the regulators should … regulate.
The law doesn’t operate in silos as Ryanair it seems would have everyone believe. Aviation, labour and employment law intersect.
You wouldn’t expect a pilot to pay for a new type rating if the airline changed its fleet… so why are we expecting new entrants who are the most vulnerable amongst us who already have likely 100k of debt… to take on more? This then gets into the Ghent study where such vulnerable people are not likely to make sound decisions when pay comes into reporting fatigue etc.
Yes technically a company can of course pay minimum wage. The point of a regulator though is to ensure that they do not pay below minimum wage. We have employment and labour law that are supposed to draw a line as to when the employer pays for training. My understanding is that the OCC and LIFUS are non-delegable if wrapped up with the type rating then this also should be the case. So as soon as an airline charges for training and includes these elements in that relationship they are effectively charging for employment until the relationship fundamentally changes. Just because the company puts a paper shell between itself and the employee that doesn’t mean everyone should accept this evasion of law and workers rights… that is where the regulators should … regulate.
The law doesn’t operate in silos as Ryanair it seems would have everyone believe. Aviation, labour and employment law intersect.
You wouldn’t expect a pilot to pay for a new type rating if the airline changed its fleet… so why are we expecting new entrants who are the most vulnerable amongst us who already have likely 100k of debt… to take on more? This then gets into the Ghent study where such vulnerable people are not likely to make sound decisions when pay comes into reporting fatigue etc.
Joined: Sep 2025
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 27
Likes: 25
From: Birmimgham
I don’t work for Ryanair… it doesn’t mean I can’t see what they’ve doing tk the industry at large. Some people care about society about terms and conditions about the downward spiral this world is clearly in.
my question to you is… why do you defend the vested interests of a massive corporation over those of your fellow worker? Why do you want MOLs pockets to be so full? While his staff struggle with debt and may not even be getting minimum wage?
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 589
Likes: 60
From: FLSomething
One has to wonder why so many people in this day and age… want to lick boots?
I don’t work for Ryanair… it doesn’t mean I can’t see what they’ve doing tk the industry at large. Some people care about society about terms and conditions about the downward spiral this world is clearly in.
my question to you is… why do you defend the vested interests of a massive corporation over those of your fellow worker? Why do you want MOLs pockets to be so full? While his staff struggle with debt and may not even be getting minimum wage?
I don’t work for Ryanair… it doesn’t mean I can’t see what they’ve doing tk the industry at large. Some people care about society about terms and conditions about the downward spiral this world is clearly in.
my question to you is… why do you defend the vested interests of a massive corporation over those of your fellow worker? Why do you want MOLs pockets to be so full? While his staff struggle with debt and may not even be getting minimum wage?
What you’re advocating for, presumably, is to be the one and only industry with legally mandated minimum salaries over and above minimum wage? It’s an odd position which simply isn’t realistic.
There is no requirement to saddle yourself with debt to become a pilot. Indeed, tens of millions of people in this country choose not to. You may well choose to, that’s fine, in all likelihood we can say that in the current market it will easily pay itself off in the long run.
Joined: Sep 2025
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 27
Likes: 25
From: Birmimgham
If they are getting minimum wage at least, which I’m sure they are, that’s the end of legal obligation.
What you’re advocating for, presumably, is to be the one and only industry with legally mandated minimum salaries over and above minimum wage? It’s an odd position which simply isn’t realistic.
There is no requirement to saddle yourself with debt to become a pilot. Indeed, tens of millions of people in this country choose not to. You may well choose to, that’s fine, in all likelihood we can say that in the current market it will easily pay itself off in the long run.
What you’re advocating for, presumably, is to be the one and only industry with legally mandated minimum salaries over and above minimum wage? It’s an odd position which simply isn’t realistic.
There is no requirement to saddle yourself with debt to become a pilot. Indeed, tens of millions of people in this country choose not to. You may well choose to, that’s fine, in all likelihood we can say that in the current market it will easily pay itself off in the long run.
I was quite clear… post CPL / APS MCC training should and technically legally is the employers responsibility. Especially OCC and LIFUS… where you are operating to specific company SOPs … recruiting and charging employees with the suggestion you’re initially a consumer…. even though you’re unlikely to be so unless the type rating is generic … and not paying them for part or all of that period amounts to illegal deductions from wages. For instance paying 30k for a type rating … then being paid £1400 per month on the line for the first 6-12 months… amounts to likely minimum wage violations even if you can’t see it in the payslips themselves.
You say there’s no requirement to saddle yourself with debt to become a pilot… I don’t follow… how else does one attain a CPL if not taking on 1000s in debt? I also don’t follow your logic… if avoiding debt was the driver of all careers… we wouldn’t have many skilled positions at all would we? We as a society decided to force debt on the aspirational to commodify it … now it’s so normalised the view is not “the world needs pilots / Drs etc” but you don’t have to choose to become one 🤦♂️ — when did we collectively decide to become serfs again?
Virtually every airline recruiting pays for the type rating onwards… as its employer specific and hard to extract the OCC components. Why do we collectively allow Ryanair the uncompetitive advantage… of not adhering to the rules all other employers seem to abide by? And apparently we’ve done it that long… it’s normalised to the point where it’s seen as normal for a pilot to take on an additional 30k + of debt after CPL / ATPLs and not be paid through training and then be underpaid… when initially on the line flying passengers.
It’s odd that people defend a company for making people’s lives actively worse… likely breaching legal obligations and declaring it a consequence of supply and demand…solely for pilot recruitment… while simultaneously ignoring that this very practice has created an un-competitive advantage in the market place for that very airline which is then defended illogically as exploiting the “fair” market 😂😂.
I recommend reading the guardian article and Ghent study. This isn’t as simple as supply and demand and the view that Ryanair can simply do whatever they want and abuse people.
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 178
Likes: 3
From: Between 0 and 41000 ft
You need to get a reality check.
Regulators have nothing to do with employment law or remuneration packages. This is the same across all regulated industries.
Yes, airline pilots are higher skill. So is a librarian. So is a musician. So is a police officer. But a cadet is not as skilled an an examiner. A librarian assistant is not as skilled as senior librarian. A pianist is not as skilled as a maestro. A police constable is not as skilled as a detective. And guess which industry out of this 4 pays more in the long run. Yet a police officer is a way more riskier than a pilot, I can assure you of that.
In the end, is basic economics dynamics - offer vs. demand. This goes the same across all business. The difference is how each business decides to approach these opportunities: it's called business strategy.
There are people that work very hard to pay for their training and not take a huge debt. The people that rack thousands of debt nowadays are either the ones that were sold a dream, or the ones that were gifted with a financial advantage. The same hard working people are the ones that will pay for TR if that means they will land the job. They see it as opportunity. The gifted ones will pay and moan about it later, slagging their employer all the way, forgetting that nobody forced them, or not realising that paying for that rating was the door needed to be open for the rest of their career. At the end of the day, you will carry that rating with your licence. You can do it whatever you want with that. Including buying your own aircraft and fly it for fun.
You use a lot of words like virtually, technically, likely - that shows that you don't know the facts and think companies thrive by parting each others' back. In an ideal world, no one would work and everyone would have the same money. A week after, there would be rich and poor. Thinking of doing the right thing is all great on paper, but it might not work in reality. The same way what you think is the right thing for you, might not be the right thing for me.
Ask your junior lawyer friend what is their salary. Then ask them how many hours they work. The unofficial version. You'll be glad at least we have flight time limitations. And you'll quickly see who's actually working below minimum wage.
And don't even get started with the US vs Europe salaries. They are two complete worlds.
Regulators have nothing to do with employment law or remuneration packages. This is the same across all regulated industries.
Yes, airline pilots are higher skill. So is a librarian. So is a musician. So is a police officer. But a cadet is not as skilled an an examiner. A librarian assistant is not as skilled as senior librarian. A pianist is not as skilled as a maestro. A police constable is not as skilled as a detective. And guess which industry out of this 4 pays more in the long run. Yet a police officer is a way more riskier than a pilot, I can assure you of that.
In the end, is basic economics dynamics - offer vs. demand. This goes the same across all business. The difference is how each business decides to approach these opportunities: it's called business strategy.
There are people that work very hard to pay for their training and not take a huge debt. The people that rack thousands of debt nowadays are either the ones that were sold a dream, or the ones that were gifted with a financial advantage. The same hard working people are the ones that will pay for TR if that means they will land the job. They see it as opportunity. The gifted ones will pay and moan about it later, slagging their employer all the way, forgetting that nobody forced them, or not realising that paying for that rating was the door needed to be open for the rest of their career. At the end of the day, you will carry that rating with your licence. You can do it whatever you want with that. Including buying your own aircraft and fly it for fun.
You use a lot of words like virtually, technically, likely - that shows that you don't know the facts and think companies thrive by parting each others' back. In an ideal world, no one would work and everyone would have the same money. A week after, there would be rich and poor. Thinking of doing the right thing is all great on paper, but it might not work in reality. The same way what you think is the right thing for you, might not be the right thing for me.
Ask your junior lawyer friend what is their salary. Then ask them how many hours they work. The unofficial version. You'll be glad at least we have flight time limitations. And you'll quickly see who's actually working below minimum wage.
And don't even get started with the US vs Europe salaries. They are two complete worlds.
Joined: Sep 2025
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 27
Likes: 25
From: Birmimgham
If that’s a “reality check”, it’s a pretty imaginative one tbh.
My background before aviation was in construction, consultancy and planning, working with regulators. Their job’s simple: to uphold the law — not to look away while a company builds profit from the grey gaps between one law and another.
The idea that regulators have “nothing to do with employment law” ignores how these systems overlap. Aviation rules govern safety, training and operational control. Employment law governs who pays and who carries responsibility. When a company blurs that line—charging for mandatory OCC and LIFUS phases that are non-delegable under ORO.FC.220—and calls it “business strategy”, that’s not clever economics, it’s regulatory evasion.
If regulators weren’t meant to get involved, why do the regs explicitly say otherwise? Why did the EU courts shut down Ryanair’s private-company pilot scheme in the 2010s for exactly that reason—disguising employment to dodge tax and insurance? Regulators are supposed to step in when “strategy” becomes structured avoidance.
Reducing this to “personal choice” or “market forces” sounds neat but fails basic logic. Choice only exists in a fair market. When one operator normalises £30–40k pay-to-fly schemes, unpaid training and sub-minimum-wage flying, that market stops being free—it’s coerced by design.
And this goes straight to flight safety. A pilot in LIFUS who’s not properly paid, or who’s burned through savings on a 30k type, probably isn’t sleeping or eating well—and certainly won’t feel able to call fatigued. At that point, dodgy labour practice becomes a safety risk, not a lifestyle choice.
Funny how every time this comes up someone says “that’s just how the world works.” Same line used to defend child labour, pollution and zero-hour contracts—none fixed by the invisible hand of the market, all fixed when regulators finally enforced existing law.
And about the “you haven’t worked hard” jab — I was labouring on building sites at fourteen. Hard work isn’t the issue; legality and integrity are. Plenty of young pilots have grafted, paid huge sums for training, and still end up paying for their employer’s legal obligations while earning less than a barista.
I’ve yet to meet a lawyer who paid £100k+ to qualify only to stand in court unpaid, representing the firm that underpaid them. Yet when it’s a pilot flying passengers, it’s somehow “market forces.”
You are right on one thing: the U.S. does it better. A single FAA regulator, structured routes, much of it employer-funded, strong unions. Europe’s divide-and-conquer model—EASA one side, labour law the other—just invites airlines to work the cracks.
So no, this isn’t about entitlement or naivety. It’s about the rule of law. A regulator that lets companies exploit overlaps between safety and employment law isn’t neutral; it’s complicit. A market that rewards whoever bends furthest isn’t free; it’s broken.
You call it realism. I call it regulatory failure wrapped in economic fatalism.
The real question is why you’re batting for the one airline that’s been under investigation across Europe almost every year for two decades, repeatedly called out for abusive and exploitative practices.
Is it an “I’m alright Jack” thing? Are you a career pilot, never known anything else? One of those “I went through it so everyone else should too” 🤷♂️
’Cause that’s not realism either — that’s resignation and ignorance outside of the aviation bubble.
Then again, maybe you just took Econ 101… or skimmed The Art of the Deal. 😂
My background before aviation was in construction, consultancy and planning, working with regulators. Their job’s simple: to uphold the law — not to look away while a company builds profit from the grey gaps between one law and another.
The idea that regulators have “nothing to do with employment law” ignores how these systems overlap. Aviation rules govern safety, training and operational control. Employment law governs who pays and who carries responsibility. When a company blurs that line—charging for mandatory OCC and LIFUS phases that are non-delegable under ORO.FC.220—and calls it “business strategy”, that’s not clever economics, it’s regulatory evasion.
If regulators weren’t meant to get involved, why do the regs explicitly say otherwise? Why did the EU courts shut down Ryanair’s private-company pilot scheme in the 2010s for exactly that reason—disguising employment to dodge tax and insurance? Regulators are supposed to step in when “strategy” becomes structured avoidance.
Reducing this to “personal choice” or “market forces” sounds neat but fails basic logic. Choice only exists in a fair market. When one operator normalises £30–40k pay-to-fly schemes, unpaid training and sub-minimum-wage flying, that market stops being free—it’s coerced by design.
And this goes straight to flight safety. A pilot in LIFUS who’s not properly paid, or who’s burned through savings on a 30k type, probably isn’t sleeping or eating well—and certainly won’t feel able to call fatigued. At that point, dodgy labour practice becomes a safety risk, not a lifestyle choice.
Funny how every time this comes up someone says “that’s just how the world works.” Same line used to defend child labour, pollution and zero-hour contracts—none fixed by the invisible hand of the market, all fixed when regulators finally enforced existing law.
And about the “you haven’t worked hard” jab — I was labouring on building sites at fourteen. Hard work isn’t the issue; legality and integrity are. Plenty of young pilots have grafted, paid huge sums for training, and still end up paying for their employer’s legal obligations while earning less than a barista.
I’ve yet to meet a lawyer who paid £100k+ to qualify only to stand in court unpaid, representing the firm that underpaid them. Yet when it’s a pilot flying passengers, it’s somehow “market forces.”
You are right on one thing: the U.S. does it better. A single FAA regulator, structured routes, much of it employer-funded, strong unions. Europe’s divide-and-conquer model—EASA one side, labour law the other—just invites airlines to work the cracks.
So no, this isn’t about entitlement or naivety. It’s about the rule of law. A regulator that lets companies exploit overlaps between safety and employment law isn’t neutral; it’s complicit. A market that rewards whoever bends furthest isn’t free; it’s broken.
You call it realism. I call it regulatory failure wrapped in economic fatalism.
The real question is why you’re batting for the one airline that’s been under investigation across Europe almost every year for two decades, repeatedly called out for abusive and exploitative practices.
Is it an “I’m alright Jack” thing? Are you a career pilot, never known anything else? One of those “I went through it so everyone else should too” 🤷♂️
’Cause that’s not realism either — that’s resignation and ignorance outside of the aviation bubble.
Then again, maybe you just took Econ 101… or skimmed The Art of the Deal. 😂
Joined: Sep 2025
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 27
Likes: 25
From: Birmimgham
I regret commenting on this thread. I should’ve known the sycophants would swarm 🙄.
Anyone taking on £70k+ of debt just to perform a function for an employer is stepping into a broken system. Apprentice electricians don’t do that. Doctors don’t. Lawyers don’t. Student loans are a tax, not a ransom. No other profession front-loads cost like this before a single pay cheque. It shuts people out, fuels exploitation, and bleeds directly into safety.
Pilots provide a service to society like anyone else. Previous generations weren’t buried under this kind of debt. Now the same people who benefited from fairer systems defend the one that stripped them away. Falling birth rates, unaffordable housing, privatised essentials — all consequences of the same thinking.
Maybe I do need a reality check — that we’re living through mass delusion, where the middle class is being squeezed into non-existence while the wealthy line their pockets with the type-rating fees of line-training pilots sleeping in their cars.
That came direct from a Ryanair line-training captain.
Clearly no one thinks in systems anymore. 🤦♂️
Anyone taking on £70k+ of debt just to perform a function for an employer is stepping into a broken system. Apprentice electricians don’t do that. Doctors don’t. Lawyers don’t. Student loans are a tax, not a ransom. No other profession front-loads cost like this before a single pay cheque. It shuts people out, fuels exploitation, and bleeds directly into safety.
Pilots provide a service to society like anyone else. Previous generations weren’t buried under this kind of debt. Now the same people who benefited from fairer systems defend the one that stripped them away. Falling birth rates, unaffordable housing, privatised essentials — all consequences of the same thinking.
Maybe I do need a reality check — that we’re living through mass delusion, where the middle class is being squeezed into non-existence while the wealthy line their pockets with the type-rating fees of line-training pilots sleeping in their cars.
That came direct from a Ryanair line-training captain.
Clearly no one thinks in systems anymore. 🤦♂️
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 178
Likes: 3
From: Between 0 and 41000 ft
The fact that you just splashed out your CV just shows clearly you have an axe to grind and you turn this subject around your ideology of what you think it is right. My answer was not even directed to you personally, but as a general approach to the industry.
AFAIK, the regulator is the where the company has they AOC registered - in the case, either the IAA, ULC ir CAD. And while you have governance responsibilities as an operator, none of these bodies regulate the type of contract or pay you have. You can mention all the ORO you like, just give me an industry where a skilled worker gets paid the same as before and after training. How about legacy airlines that now also charge for ratings? Do you think it was only RYR? Or EZY? How about TUI that charged £7k for a 6 month OCC contract after COVID? Haha.
I don't know where you've seen RYR runs a P2F scheme, or ask pilots to fly while being unpaid. If you have those facts, I highly recommend you present them to the relevant authority, or a court, or even your MP, rather than a public forum.
And for clearance of doubt - I don't approve any kind of malpractice. I just don't point the finger to anyone specific, because everyone does it, either disguised or blatantly. You just seem to fail to accept this, hence why I said you need a reality check.
AFAIK, the regulator is the where the company has they AOC registered - in the case, either the IAA, ULC ir CAD. And while you have governance responsibilities as an operator, none of these bodies regulate the type of contract or pay you have. You can mention all the ORO you like, just give me an industry where a skilled worker gets paid the same as before and after training. How about legacy airlines that now also charge for ratings? Do you think it was only RYR? Or EZY? How about TUI that charged £7k for a 6 month OCC contract after COVID? Haha.
I don't know where you've seen RYR runs a P2F scheme, or ask pilots to fly while being unpaid. If you have those facts, I highly recommend you present them to the relevant authority, or a court, or even your MP, rather than a public forum.
And for clearance of doubt - I don't approve any kind of malpractice. I just don't point the finger to anyone specific, because everyone does it, either disguised or blatantly. You just seem to fail to accept this, hence why I said you need a reality check.
Joined: Jul 2024
Posts: 575
Likes: 431
From: Outbush
I regret commenting on this thread. I should’ve known the sycophants would swarm 🙄.
Anyone taking on £70k+ of debt just to perform a function for an employer is stepping into a broken system. Apprentice electricians don’t do that. Doctors don’t. Lawyers don’t. Student loans are a tax, not a ransom. No other profession front-loads cost like this before a single pay cheque. It shuts people out, fuels exploitation, and bleeds directly into safety.
Pilots provide a service to society like anyone else. Previous generations weren’t buried under this kind of debt. Now the same people who benefited from fairer systems defend the one that stripped them away. Falling birth rates, unaffordable housing, privatised essentials — all consequences of the same thinking.
Maybe I do need a reality check — that we’re living through mass delusion, where the middle class is being squeezed into non-existence while the wealthy line their pockets with the type-rating fees of line-training pilots sleeping in their cars.
That came direct from a Ryanair line-training captain.
Clearly no one thinks in systems anymore. 🤦♂️
Anyone taking on £70k+ of debt just to perform a function for an employer is stepping into a broken system. Apprentice electricians don’t do that. Doctors don’t. Lawyers don’t. Student loans are a tax, not a ransom. No other profession front-loads cost like this before a single pay cheque. It shuts people out, fuels exploitation, and bleeds directly into safety.
Pilots provide a service to society like anyone else. Previous generations weren’t buried under this kind of debt. Now the same people who benefited from fairer systems defend the one that stripped them away. Falling birth rates, unaffordable housing, privatised essentials — all consequences of the same thinking.
Maybe I do need a reality check — that we’re living through mass delusion, where the middle class is being squeezed into non-existence while the wealthy line their pockets with the type-rating fees of line-training pilots sleeping in their cars.
That came direct from a Ryanair line-training captain.
Clearly no one thinks in systems anymore. 🤦♂️
Companies offer certain Ts & Cs, and pilots are free to accept them or look elsewhere. If there are not enough applicants, then Ts & Cs improve. It’s basic supply and demand.
As someone else has mentioned, take a look at the hourly rate of a junior lawyer, or a junior doctor. In neither case is there any form of useful regulation of working hours.
You keep going on about the regulators role in salaries. Please point us all towards the ESA/FAA/UKCAA/CASA/NZCAA references that point to this. Actually don’t bother - you would be wasting your time. Aviation regs do not touch on employment law.
As an FYI, poor salaries, and other unsavoury ideas have been around since way before you left construction to start a flying career. They have only increased through supply and demand, and good union negotiations. Never has a regulator said “pay your pilots more”. Unless you can provide a reference thats counters this, let it go.
Sycophants? Really? Care to expand? Maybe let this go too.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 182
Likes: 29
From: where I lay my hat
As with geo politics, the self righteous willfully decline to acquiaint themselves with the facts to avoid having their assertions challenged, even fabricating falsehoods about things like discretion or fuel decisions (we get almost daily company emails recommending taking extra fuel for this or that. Never had my decision on either matter ever questioned). The front loaded investment and low initial net pay is no different to massive investment in degrees, qualifications (especially in the US) and then taking internships to try and enter the world of investment banking or law. Fact is that net pay for captains at Ryanair is commonly in five figures per month depending on base, full local taxes. Upgrade to command is very quick. Ex cadets also often offset huge amounts of prior costs against current earnings (depending on tax jurisdiction).
I have worked at a couple of medium to large airlines which were widely lauded as the best jobs in aviation, drawing in pilots from the likes of Emirates, Virgin and easyjet ... and I found them absolutely awful. (Incidentally; Easyjet wanted €25k for the rating for a DEC - Ryanair didn't charge me a penny, neither up front, or from pay - so i went to the latter). I don't think many Ryanair pilots would describe their employment as fabulous, but once out of the first year or two as a cadet, it definitely counts as middling to good. With a family near to one's base, the family would describe it as fabulous though, mainly due to the roster. Occasionally things happen which can be profoundly annoying, some leave because of it or rile against it, accumulating perceived slights ... but those who ignore it and move on, have an enjoyable, stress free time there.
Pension is way below par though, the lack of profit share rankles, and no medical cover becomes a consideration when you get older. Even so, first get the facts, do the sums, and then come back here.
I have worked at a couple of medium to large airlines which were widely lauded as the best jobs in aviation, drawing in pilots from the likes of Emirates, Virgin and easyjet ... and I found them absolutely awful. (Incidentally; Easyjet wanted €25k for the rating for a DEC - Ryanair didn't charge me a penny, neither up front, or from pay - so i went to the latter). I don't think many Ryanair pilots would describe their employment as fabulous, but once out of the first year or two as a cadet, it definitely counts as middling to good. With a family near to one's base, the family would describe it as fabulous though, mainly due to the roster. Occasionally things happen which can be profoundly annoying, some leave because of it or rile against it, accumulating perceived slights ... but those who ignore it and move on, have an enjoyable, stress free time there.
Pension is way below par though, the lack of profit share rankles, and no medical cover becomes a consideration when you get older. Even so, first get the facts, do the sums, and then come back here.
Last edited by midnight cruiser; 7th October 2025 at 04:38.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,563
Likes: 35
From: I wouldn't know.
I would point to the arbitrary US 1.500 hour rule. It was one of the most successful Union lobby actions ever and directly increased entry level salaries a lot. There is absolutely no safety bonus of it, but a huge decrease in available work force and therefore much higher salaries to keep people spending a couple hundred k to get a license.
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 326
Likes: 7
From: World
I regret commenting on this thread. I should’ve known the sycophants would swarm 🙄.
Anyone taking on £70k+ of debt just to perform a function for an employer is stepping into a broken system. Apprentice electricians don’t do that. Doctors don’t. Lawyers don’t. Student loans are a tax, not a ransom. No other profession front-loads cost like this before a single pay cheque. It shuts people out, fuels exploitation, and bleeds directly into safety.
Pilots provide a service to society like anyone else. Previous generations weren’t buried under this kind of debt. Now the same people who benefited from fairer systems defend the one that stripped them away. Falling birth rates, unaffordable housing, privatised essentials — all consequences of the same thinking.
Maybe I do need a reality check — that we’re living through mass delusion, where the middle class is being squeezed into non-existence while the wealthy line their pockets with the type-rating fees of line-training pilots sleeping in their cars.
That came direct from a Ryanair line-training captain.
Clearly no one thinks in systems anymore. 🤦♂️
Anyone taking on £70k+ of debt just to perform a function for an employer is stepping into a broken system. Apprentice electricians don’t do that. Doctors don’t. Lawyers don’t. Student loans are a tax, not a ransom. No other profession front-loads cost like this before a single pay cheque. It shuts people out, fuels exploitation, and bleeds directly into safety.
Pilots provide a service to society like anyone else. Previous generations weren’t buried under this kind of debt. Now the same people who benefited from fairer systems defend the one that stripped them away. Falling birth rates, unaffordable housing, privatised essentials — all consequences of the same thinking.
Maybe I do need a reality check — that we’re living through mass delusion, where the middle class is being squeezed into non-existence while the wealthy line their pockets with the type-rating fees of line-training pilots sleeping in their cars.
That came direct from a Ryanair line-training captain.
Clearly no one thinks in systems anymore. 🤦♂️